Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 421 - 430 of 794
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This issue brief highlighted the 2009 gender gap in STEM degrees, jobs, and earnings in the United States. The authors used data from the 2009 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report highlighted a 2013 convening of stakeholders who discussed barriers to becoming successful STEM faculty for black, Hispanic, and Native American women, and strategies to overcome those…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This paper described the ADVANCE IT-Catalyst study that examined the barriers facing female STEM faculty members at six Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) colleges, compared with men at RIT…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) summarizes the findings of a descriptive study of Youth Opportunity Grants. The 36 grants issued under this program, which began in 2000…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report summarizes YouthBuild participants’ experiences after program completion. YouthBuild was founded in 1991 and offers academic instruction and construction training to economically…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This report summarizes the findings of an implementation and outcomes analysis of Young Offender grants. These grants, which were awarded to 30 YouthBuild USA sites in 2004 and 2005, were to provide…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report aimed to explore in greater detail the findings of the National Job Corps Study, an impact study whose final report was published in 2001. Specifically, the authors sought to understand…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study examined the work of six dropout recovery programs to explore how similar programs might more effectively prepare youth for postsecondary education and employment. It focused on the key…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This Government Accountability Office brief studied the costs and outcomes of the Job Corps program during program year 1991 (covering calendar year July 1991 through June 1992). Job Corps offers…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact Presidential Executive Order 13518 (EO13518) had on the employment of veterans who served in the military starting in September 2001 (Gulf War II-era…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.